1/ The public freakout over Justice Thomas's suggestion that Internet companies might be subject to common carrier status is rich considering the entire premise of net neutrality was based upon the very same legal principle.
2/ It is true that net neutrality was focused on internet service providers and the current debate is on companies such as Facebook and Google and Twitter, but you should not be surprised when existing legal principles are advanced in ways you didn't anticipate.
3/ The extant case is a perfect example. If Twitter comments are a "public forum" that prevents public officials such as former President Trump from blocking users, then First Amendment law is already creeping into social media.
4/ Is it really that surprising that common carrier arguments, which have been used to argue for net neutrality, would be used in a similar manner as a means of regulating social media companies (instead of internet service providers)? No, not really.
5/ It's also worth noting that Justice Thomas's comments represent a single vote, and none of his colleagues signed on. So the reaction today is a bit out of proportion to its impact (which is currently nil). Whether it leads to something more remains to be seen.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
